The end of the Big Bang Theory era? (NPR, not crackpottery)

On 9/14/11 8:20 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 14/09/2011 9:08 AM, jim wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:48 pm, Sam wrote:
"Physicists always knew we could not look beyond 13.7 billion light
years (since that was the age of the cosmos). Inflation, however added
its own twist to the idea of cosmic "horizons." Inflation theory implies
that there might be other parts of the universe that look nothing like
our own that might be in entirely different states. Most importantly, it
hinted that there might, effectively, be more than universe out there.
Thus it became possible that the big bang was simply our big bang. It
was demoted from "The Creation" down to "a creation."

Well, they didn't know that until 1920. So, the people who really
do
time investigations are still working on DNA technology, cloning,
self-replicating machines, and pulsed lasers.

Though not clearly stated in this article, one of the solutions designed
to extend and enhance the original Big Bang theory was Inflationary
theory. When Inflation was added to Big Bang, it made Big Bang plausible
again. However, people are now thinking, why do we need Big Bang *and*
Inflation at the same time, why not just have Inflation by itself? If
you have Inflation without Big Bang, then you can have multiple
Inflation events in different parts of a multiverse, each creating its
own universe.

Yousuf Khan

I don't think you can separate the two so easily. Perhaps one
day we will say they are one and the same.

Yousuf Khan wrote in
:

On 14/09/2011 9:08 AM, jim wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:48 pm, Sam wrote:
"Physicists always knew we could not look beyond 13.7 billion light
years (since that was the age of the cosmos). Inflation, however
added its own twist to the idea of cosmic "horizons." Inflation
theory implies that there might be other parts of the universe that
look nothing like our own that might be in entirely different
states. Most importantly, it hinted that there might, effectively,
be more than universe out there. Thus it became possible that the
big bang was simply our big bang. It was demoted from "The Creation"
down to "a creation."

Well, they didn't know that until 1920. So, the people who really
do
time investigations are still working on DNA technology, cloning,
self-replicating machines, and pulsed lasers.

Though not clearly stated in this article, one of the solutions
designed to extend and enhance the original Big Bang theory was
Inflationary theory. When Inflation was added to Big Bang, it made Big
Bang plausible again. However, people are now thinking, why do we need
Big Bang *and* Inflation at the same time, why not just have Inflation
by itself? If you have Inflation without Big Bang, then you can have
multiple Inflation events in different parts of a multiverse, each
creating its own universe.

Yousuf Khan

Sometimes I wonder if you are retarded.

PRE
Yousuf Khan is my favorite Usenet persona.
He might be a she, by the way, hence the civility.
I'd like a pic, how about it Mr/Ms Khan ?

(S)he knows his/her stuff, lots of good ideas, but it's a mixed bag.
Likely, the cosmos was inflating 99 giga·years ago, as it always has.

As I've said:

"Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite and perfect.
She consumes fuel so, virtually, She's “alive�.

unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit,
to wit: 13.75 giga·years old and 46.5 * 2 giga·light·years wide.

On 14/09/2011 9:58 PM, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf wrote in
Though not clearly stated in this article, one of the solutions
designed to extend and enhance the original Big Bang theory was
Inflationary theory. When Inflation was added to Big Bang, it made Big
Bang plausible again. However, people are now thinking, why do we need
Big Bang *and* Inflation at the same time, why not just have Inflation
by itself? If you have Inflation without Big Bang, then you can have
multiple Inflation events in different parts of a multiverse, each
creating its own universe.

Yousuf Khan

Sometimes I wonder if you are retarded.

It's not my idea, I'm only quoting Andrei Linde's idea, called "Eternal
Inflation". He's one of the fathers of Inflation theory, so if you think
he's a crackpot, then go ahead and say it.

3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr...start:int=2&-C

[1006.2170] Measure Problem for Eternal and Non-Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2170

Yousuf Khan

On 14/09/2011 9:54 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/14/11 8:20 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Though not clearly stated in this article, one of the solutions designed
to extend and enhance the original Big Bang theory was Inflationary
theory. When Inflation was added to Big Bang, it made Big Bang plausible
again. However, people are now thinking, why do we need Big Bang *and*
Inflation at the same time, why not just have Inflation by itself? If
you have Inflation without Big Bang, then you can have multiple
Inflation events in different parts of a multiverse, each creating its
own universe.

Yousuf Khan

I don't think you can separate the two so easily. Perhaps one
day we will say they are one and the same.

It's only a matter of readjusting yourself psychologically and giving up
on the Big Bang, a theory we've gotten used to for nearly 100 years.
There's nothing mathematically that requires Big Bang prior to
Inflation, the entire universe we see can be produced through Inflation
alone. The only difference between the theories is that Big Bang
Inflation implies starting at a singularity, whereas Eternal Inflation
doesn't require a full singularity just a smaller earlier universe. They
would both produce the same universe we see today. So given that both
theories produce the same result, why do we need to keep the added
unnecessary step of a Big Bang?

Big Bang Inflation was a crutch theory that let us keep our attachment
to the venerable Big Bang. Inflation on its own is the new paradigm.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote in
:

On 14/09/2011 9:58 PM, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf wrote in
Though not clearly stated in this article, one of the solutions
designed to extend and enhance the original Big Bang theory was
Inflationary theory. When Inflation was added to Big Bang, it made
Big Bang plausible again. However, people are now thinking, why do
we need Big Bang *and* Inflation at the same time, why not just have
Inflation by itself? If you have Inflation without Big Bang, then
you can have multiple Inflation events in different parts of a
multiverse, each creating its own universe.

Yousuf Khan

Sometimes I wonder if you are retarded.

It's not my idea, I'm only quoting Andrei Linde's idea, called
"Eternal Inflation". He's one of the fathers of Inflation theory, so
if you think he's a crackpot, then go ahead and say it.

Hoyle was one of the pioneers in astronomy and turned into a crank into
his old age.

Essen was a smart man who figured out a lot about atomic clocks but
turned into a relativity crank.

It isn't without precedent.


3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang | Cosmology | DISCOVER
Magazine
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr...might-blow-up-
t
he-big-bang/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C

The eternal inflation as referenced here is interesting, but poses
observational 'challenges'.

As for Julian Barbour, I've read some of his books in the past. He
always has interesting ideas, be his own or fleshed out ideas of others.
Unfortunately none of them pan out. One of the notables was his support
of Arp's idea that there was quantization in redshift. Ol' Oldershaw
might like that one...



[1006.2170] Measure Problem for Eternal and Non-Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2170

Yousuf Khan


It always raises an eyebrow when an abstract, much less a paper, about
cosmology is incomprehensible to me.

On 14/09/2011 11:05 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
Yousuf Khan is my favorite Usenet persona.
He might be a she, by the way, hence the civility.
I'd like a pic, how about it Mr/Ms Khan ?

Yousuf is a guy's name always. It's another form of Joseph.

(S)he knows his/her stuff, lots of good ideas, but it's a mixed bag.
Likely, the cosmos was inflating 99 giga·years ago, as it always has.

Well, no, the universe in which we live is most likely 13.7 billion
years old. However, there might have been other universes that have been
inflating since 99 billion years ago, and possibly others even longer.
The theory is called "Eternal" Inflation, so it would mean that the
multiverse is infinitely old.

Yousuf Khan

PRE
100 years ago, the ·known· Universe was 100 mega·years old.
Today's ·known· Universe goes back 13.75 giga·years, as I said,
and it's 46.5 * 2 giga·light·years wide.

So it's not "X years old", the horizon is random, not meaningful;
nothing was "born" 13.75 giga·years ago.

On 9/14/11 11:47 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:


It's only a matter of readjusting yourself psychologically and giving up
on the Big Bang, a theory we've gotten used to for nearly 100 years.

Yousuf--I don't think you understand what the big bang says.

"The Big Bang model is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early
development of the universe. The major feature of the Big Bang theory is
that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that
expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). This rapid expansion caused the young
universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

On Sep 13, 10:27*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 13/09/2011 3:42 PM, eric gisse wrote:

Yousuf *wrote in
m:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/0...ilight-of-the-
big-bang

"We live at the end of an era. We live in one of those singular
moments in history when one scientific and culturally accepted concept
of cosmic origins is fading and others, yet unproven, vie for
ascendency.

We live at the twilight of the big bang."

There is nothing in here that is new information.

No, but there is stuff in here that is often difficult to explain while
still maintaining adherence to the existing paradigm, so it often gets
swept under the table.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Along with anything else that isn't kosher goes under the table as
well as under the rug, if you get my drift.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”